Friday, October 21, 2011

Withdrawal of US Troops From Iraq Highly Suspect

Think-tank designs for Iran leave only Israeli attack & coaxed provocation for total war on table. Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

For ten months the Obama administration has presided over the "Arab Spring," a geopolitical gambit years in the making, and executed simultaneously in multiple nations throughout the Middle East and North Africa in the beginning of 2011.

The regional conflagration was stoked by a steady stream of  denial, even feigned surprise, with covert support for US-backed opposition groups, then more overt support, and finally NATO airstrikes, weapons, training, and special operations forces lent to the rebellion in Libya and weapons and support sent to Syria's militants.

These collective efforts stretching from Tunisia and leading up to Iran's doorstep serve a singular agenda -- that is, to contain and ultimately overturn the reemergence of Russia as well as to contain the rise of China.

Toppling Iran

Integral to this stated agenda, is the toppling of Iran's government and its integration into the Wall Street-London "international order." Efforts to topple Syria's government by US-backed and now apparently armed opposition groups aim to isolate and even provoke the Islamic Republic into a suitable justification for US or Israeli (or both) retaliation. As reported on extensively, the literal playbook from which these stratagems are drawn is the Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report. In it, it specifically states:

" would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) "

The 2009 "Green Revolution" was just such an attempt at "covert regime change" to "goad Iran into such a provocation" though it ignominiously failed. It appears that in addition to funding, arming, and harboring the terrorist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), the US has also taken to entirely fabricating "such provocations." The recent DEA-Saudi bomb plot announced by Attorney General Eric Holder stands on tenuous grounds, even more so now that Iran has counterclaimed that the supposed Quds Forces member the US implicated may in fact be a member of the above stated US-backed MEK terrorist organization. The US has done all in its power to coax Saudi Arabia into taking a harder line against Tehran. The Brookings report had this to say about that in 2009:

"For instance, Saudi Arabia is positively apoplectic about the Iranians’ nuclear program, as well as about their mischief making in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. Yet, so far, Riyadh has made clear that it will not support military operations of any kind against Iran. Certainly that could change, but it is hard to imagine what it would take."

" is hard to imagine what it would take." Perhaps MEK terrorists posing as Quds Forces, entrapping a drug addicted used-car salesman to arrange a bomb plot against a Saudi ambassador and then blaming it on Iran.

With the fate of Libya hanging in the balance, with US troops still occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan, and with renewed vigor aimed toward Syria after the alleged fall of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, it is incredibly unlikely that the US has abandoned its plans to ultimately topple the Iranian regime as the crescendo to this ongoing regional campaign. In fact, many amongst Obama's own administration have been the most rabid supporters of executing the final leg of this long-term strategy started under the Bush administration. The 2008 presidential runner-up John McCain, and of course the same collection of unelected, corporate-funded policy makers from the halls of Brookings Institution, the Foreign Policy Initiative and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have also been more than eager in pushing this agenda along.

That these policy makers, who have helped engineer and support the current course Obama is on, are now sulking over Obama's decision to pull troops out of Iraq when in fact Obama doesn't, never has, and never will make such decisions, is highly suspect. Kenneth Pollack, one of the co-authors of the "Which Path to Persia?" report, recently expressed dismay in his article titled, "With a Whimper, Not a Bang." Frederick Kagan, the corporate-funded AEI architect behind the Iraq "troop surge" also lamented in a piece titled, "Obama abandons Iraq." Kagan explicitly claims that the withdrawal would be "giving Tehran the single most important demand it has pursued for years—the complete withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq."

Possible Scenarios

The US is at least peddling the illusion that it is clearing out its holdings in Iraq, leaving a symbolic force for a reason -- a reason that has to do with a final gambit to be played against Iran, the last domino to fall in the US-contrived "Arab Spring." These are two possible scenarios:

1. Leave a small symbolic force for the Iranians to attack in Iraq after a "unilateral" Israeli airstrike. Whatever Iran decides to do, it may not be able to do sustainably, but will do viciously in the opening phases. By leaving a symbolic force in Iraq, the US can garner the necessary sympathy and anger politically at home to launch a wider operation against Iran in "retaliation."

2. Feign as if the US is disengaging from the Middle East so when a false flag terror attack or other provocation is perpetrated against the US, it will look like an egregious act of war by Iran. While a shrinking US presence in the Middle East would logically engender even more patience in Tehran, the script writers of the latest DEA-Saudi bomb plot took special care to ensure the "Iran has become bolder" talking-point made it repetitively on air and into the minds of unsuspecting Americans.

This is more than mere idle speculation. In the Brookings Institution report, "Which Path to Persia?" nearly all but the most extreme measures proposed in the report have been executed. The only options left on the table unused include a unilateral Israeli airstrike designed to provoke a significant retaliation thus bringing the US into war with Iran and a variety of options to provoke a full-scale invasion.

In a section of the report titled, "Leave it to Bibi: Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike," (page 89, page 102 of the .pdf) it appears that Israeli intelligence is also working with the terrorist organization MEK:

"Israeli intelligence operations against Iran were stepped up even earlier and have included use of third parties to publicize the Iranian threat without revealing the Israeli hand. Iran's secret enrichment and heavy-water reactor programs were publicly exposed in August 2002 by an Iranian dissident group (the Mujahedin-e Khalq), which reportedly was unwittingly fed the information by Israeli intelligence."

The report goes on to say of an American-approved Israeli airstrike:

"However, as noted in the previous chapter, the airstrikes themselves are really just the start of this policy. Again, the Iranians would doubtless rebuild their nuclear sites. They would probably retaliate against Israel, and they might retaliate against the United States, too (which might create a pretext for American airstrikes or even an invasion.)"

Allowing the Israelis to attack by air, and sacrificing US troops on the ground in Iraq as a pretext for greater war is most certainly a possibility. The report continues on by stating the necessity of maintaining a certain level of plausible deniablity regarding the Israeli airstrikes. US troops in Iraq would by default implicate America in any Israeli airstrike that would need to pass over Iraqi airspace. US troops "in retreat" in Iraq could possibly mitigate such implications as well as make an Iranian retaliation seem all the more "outrageous, deadly, and unprovoked."

We can be sure that after years of carrying forth an agenda that preceded his presidency, Obama has not suddenly decided to unilaterally pull troops from Iraq. His administration's duplicity and eagerness throughout the US-contrived "Arab Spring" all but assure us that the overarching agenda still includes encircling and toppling the government in Iran. It has not escaped the attention of the White House that a withdrawal from Iraq would give Iran its greatly desired breathing room and would greatly diminish America's influence throughout the Middle East.

Just like the false rapprochement of the West with Libya's Qaddafi before the US rearmed, reorganized, and let loose the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), when the West returns to torment Tehran, it will come back with a vengeance. Keep an eye on Israel for their attack and the complicit United States waiting to once again "lead from behind." And if you have someone you know in the US military stationed in Iraq staying behind, prepare for the absolute worse. As Henry Kissinger once so bluntly stated, "military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." (Woodward and Bernstein The Final Days in chapter 14). Certainly, a few dead G.I.s in Iraq after an Iranian retaliation for an Israeli airstrike would be just the pawns needed for "foreign policy" to move forward.

One can only hope this pessimistic analysis is entirely wrong, and that the US has overreached and has simply decided to withdraw from the battlefield and ultimately from empire. However, if unrest continues to unfold in Syria, which is essentially a low-intensity US proxy war against Damascus, and in turn against Tehran, we can be sure any optimism will be quickly dashed against the rocks by the Wall Street-London corporate-financier oligarchs.

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.   


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

as Schoenman and Shahak pointed out in the 1980s, the real goal is ultimately to break up the largest ARAB nations Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Egypt which was also the underlying point of the notorious 2002 Pentagon powerpoint presenation sponsored by Perle ("Egypt the Prize" after Iraq and Saudi Arabia)

Obama following along with the deadline created by Bush merely makes complete civil war in Iraq possible, whether it's via the Zio-backed Chalabi (and his cohort Al-Sadr) or the Zios sending their new friends the Kurds to seize Kirkuk.

one "bonus" in breaking up Iraq is the second Zio pipeline (the first is TAPI which is to deliver Israeli-owned natural gas out of Turkmenistan) created by the allowed/augmented 911 attack, the Mosul-Haifa pipeline hawked by Netanyahu to Brit investors in 2003.

Netanyahu has to know this pipeline is only possible if there is a completely independent Kurdistan, along with some future accomodation from Jordan (the old pipeline ran through Syria, another country obviously on the target list)

breaking up Iraq creates a distinct Shia entity dominating Saudi Arabia's northern border. One million minority Shia live and work in the Saudi oilfields. Thus after Iraq breakup the "new Shia threat" can be hyped especially in aid of Jeb Bush (Bush-Saudi ties) running for president, or drafted at the convention as nominee or running mate.

Iran is merely being demonized in order to break up the rest (count the number of synagogues in Iran then count the number of synagogues in Saudi Arabia). Iran may even be a part of it all along the lines of World War 1 "secret treaties." The 2006 NATO map left Iran largely intact while showing Iraq broken into three pieces and Saudi Arabia losing territory to formerly southern Iraq (along with oilfields, presumably to be rewarded to Chalabi/Al Sadr) and an Islamic "Vatican state."

The September 2000 PNAC "we sure could use a new Pearl Harbor" manifesto left open the option of relations with (Persian) Iran IMPROVING in the future. In other words the thrust of the rawest Zio policy papers has been toward breaking up the largest Arab nations.

Anonymous said...

Once the troops are gone, how many contractors will be left?

If the troops are really gone by year end, that can only mean to me that an attack on Iran is a go shortly afterwards. Moving the troops would simply be taking away an obvious target should Iran be attacked.

Anonymous said...

Almost forgot the neo-con "which path to Persia". Everything we are seeing unfold today has been in the making since the late 90's or earlier. I just don't get how the Arab world is so fractured. I'll bet US client states like Jordan and Qatar be next on the chopping block. After all, there are plenty of IMF debt slavery "loans" to descend on the "post revolutionary" countries.

Anonymous said...

If Israel wants to duke it out with Iran - let them do it on their own (No US money or manpower). The US should stay out of it. Israel is a (very) foreign country.

Maher Osseiran said...

Quality analysis.

There is always a need to consider more than just one path. The path that is being explored is strictly the one leading to an attack against Iran.

It is true that the author points out to the fact that Iran has a vote as to what the outcome would be. Still other countries in the region have votes too.

There is also the back door that would allow the US to go back into Iraq regardless of the countries in the region want or what the anti-war movement wants.

The back door that allowed them to get into Iraq in the first place are the Kurds.

One might want to take into account a recent rapproachment between Turkey and US and see how that fits or conflicts with Turkish Iranian relationships; still one needs to take into account the fact that the Kurdish issue is a common issue for these two middle-eastern countries and might effect their long term stand vis-a-vis the US.

Another things that needs consideration. Is there a deal between the ruling Kurdish parties, the US, and Turkey, that would give Turkey access to Kurdish gas in order to ween it of its dependence on Iran. Also, that would allow Turkey access to norther Iraq to take care of the PKK threat.

Good piece of analysis, I am sure there is more to come. On my end, I am too tired of analysis and favor cutting the snake's head. Please read "Enough is Enough" found at

Anonymous said...

Stay in Iraq. Have to protect the oil fields and coporate America. there is nothing left you can destroy after destroying the Mosques,museums, libraries,food supplys,water supplys, killing two million men, women and childre.500,000 babies born deformed because of the US doing such a good job with depleated uranium. Build more bases. Money is no object for taxpayers. The treasury can print more for more wars.

Anonymous said...


bring troops back to U.S because of fear of national riots.

Post a Comment